Replies

" Anything I highlighted above stick out atcha?"

Yes, what sticks out at me is someone who is engaged in selective reading.... "And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart."

Not men in a certain valley or region, but MAN himself. The first universal judgement of water is a prototype of the final universal judgement of fire - or do you not believe in that either?

Again, the floodwater covered the whole earth...

" But the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth."

and just to prove there were no other survivors...

" These three were the sons of Noah, and from these the people of the whole earth were dispersed."

"Those civilizations outside the Adamic covenant ..."

An who exactly would be outside of the Adamic covenant???

From a previous post...

Making the Bible more tolerable to the whims of the current age never leads to a greater acceptance of the truths of the Bible in that age.

... Let the Bible stand as is it - let it be called unscientific, anti-homosexual, antifemanist, unenlightened, etc. and etc. It will remain long after these other philosophies have died. So will the one who stands in it's shadow.

I asked if anything I highlighted stuck out at you, and you wrote: "Yes, what sticks out at me is someone who is engaged in selective reading.."

I guess you didn't pick up on the fact that I was showing you an example of "selective translating" which were no doubt the result of preconceived notions. In fact, you came right back at me with even MORE examples of it. LOL

Remember an important detail, the Scriptures are only inerrant in the origional autographs. Inerrancy and Human Ignorance

"An who exactly would be outside of the Adamic covenant???"

See here:

The Origins Solution by Dick Fischer

Chapter 14

NOAH AND FAMILY: A VOYAGE TO REMEMBER

[snip]

Summary

Writing in 1683, over 150 years before the Sumerian and Accadian flood stories were unearthed, Matthew Poole had this to say in A Commentary on the Holy Bible: And whereas our modern heathens, that miscall themselves Christians, laugh at the history of this flood upon this and the like occasions, as if it were an idle romance; they may please to note, that their predecessors, the ancient and wiser heathens, have divers of them acknowledged the truth of it, though they also mixed it with their fables, which was neither strange nor unusual for them to do.

Extra-biblical accounts help substantiate the flood as a documented event, an incident of record. The legends of Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, and Ziusudra not only establish the flood, they dictate the location, the extent, and the approximate date.

Adamite populations were the target of the flood. They resided in the heart of Southern Mesopotamia at that time, the focus point of the flood. The scope of the flood was entirely confined to this locale. Most of the world's human populations were unaffected. The time of the flood was around 2900 BC when Ziusudra was king.

If any credible evidence from nature of a world-wide flood catastrophe could be documented, could pass the scrutiny of peer review, and become published in any respected scientific journal, that discoverer would be an instant Noble Prize candidate. What has been offered up as evidence of a global cataclysm has been paltry, dubious, and unconvincing.

It has been pointed out that God's general revelation should match up with His special revelation. There are times when ignoring the clear messages from the Bible has caused some to rely too heavily on naturalistic revelation to the detriment of their conclusions.

Likewise, God's messages from nature must be heeded to restrain us from making preposterous interpretations of Scripture. It serves no useful purpose to declare the Bible inerrant, and then interpret so erroneously that it causes disbelief.

NOTES [snip] If anyone wants to read the whole chapter, let me know and I'll freepmail it to you.